Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Monday, January 14, 2013

The feminist fear of competition

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their "pursuit for gender equality" is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom.

Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Imagine the feminist outrage if men decided to follow their example and outlaw vibrators due their negative impact on the pursuit for gender equality and the way they tend to objectify men as sexual objects.... And if they're afraid of sexbots, just wait until artificial wombs become a reality, as they almost certainly will in time.

One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective. That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex. As is often the case, the short-sighted advocates of "progress" have completely failed to foresee the logical, indeed, the inevitable, consequences.

UPDATE: Those who are pointing out that "the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act" isn't presently a prospective law before the Canadian parliament are completely missing the point. It is obvious it isn't "real"; the Canadian government no more has a Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence than the Obama administration is really building a Death Star with his campaign logo in the bowl. It does, however, have a "Minister of State (Status of Women)"; thus showing it's not quite as far off-base as one might wish.

But there was a time, only a few months ago, when VAWA was a real law and was actually in effect for 18 years. As crazy as it sounds, an eventual debate on the legality of sexbots for male use is almost inevitable, because there is nothing too nonsensical to be utilized in defense of the female imperative. Sexbots strike at the very heart of the female imperative; it is not an accident that the subject is beginning to arise now, even if only in a theoretical manner.

Indeed, the very fact that the fictitious ban proposed was related to nonexistent sexbots not being used by men rather than real vibrators actually being used by women alone suffices to highlight the relevant point here. The interesting aspect isn't the fact or fiction of the proposed law, but rather, the basis of the reasoning being used to hypothetically justify it.

@Vox -- they actually, literally, word-for-word have it backwords. Having a sexbot does not lead to "treating a woman like an object" -- it is (precisely and accurately) "treating an object like a woman."Incidentally -- what is the politically correct action which is recommended instead of "objectification" anyway? Would it be "subjectification"? And does that mean making women the subject rather than the object, does it mean making women subject to mean, or does it mean becoming subject to women's whims?

but what's to stop a woman from using a sexbot. eqality for all. make a robo-dude with a pneumatic hog. i'm fine with that if i get silence and being left alone by my robo-babe after i blankly jackhammer it for 30 seconds.

Wow, I have no words...this sounds like something out of science fiction.

VD: "One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective. That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex."

Me: Because we would have to engage then in a discussion of human dignity, which would entail discussing those practices, policies and feminist perspectives that have "unduly emphasize[d] the objectification of women as sexual objects."

Well, we already have some Japanese men marrying characters from a Nintendo DS game (just Google "Love Plus DS marriage") so why the hell not. Oh, and blow-up dolls, does that not count as "objectifying womyn"? Why not ban that? Why is Canada trying to out-swede everyone else?

Canada actually has a Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence? This country needs to disband out of sheer embarrassment. I propose they change it to a more efficient name: Ministry of Robots or Neurosimulators (MORON).

As if I needed any more convincing that feminists hate male sexuality. To them, only female sexuality should be liberated while (straight) male sexuality should be attacked and repressed as much as possible.

Of course, some feminist will see this post and say that I support legalizing rape. No, I do not support legalizing rape, I support men being able to get sexual gratification in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, while feminists want to ban it precisely because it gratifies males.

Sexbots will be the male Pill in terms of its effects on the sexual marketplace.

The driving force for this sexbot prohibition is one element of the feminine imperative - female resource appropriation. Female resource appropriation occurs when females claim or take male generated resources for their own use, often through the use of some moral artifice to coerce male compliance. "Gender equality" is the primary moral artifice used today to appropriate male resources. Men generate more resources than women; women use "gender equality" to force the redistribution of resources from men to women.

What does sexbot prohibition have to do with female resource appropriation? Even feminists understand at some level that there has to be some appearance of an exchange in their appropriation - that male resistance is inevitable if women give absolutely nothing in exchange for the resources they take. If the value of sex is undermined by sexbots, they will have nothing to give, and their system of appropriating male resources in the name of "equality" will break down.

Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence and Human-Robot Personal Relationship ActGod, those sound like elements of a bad sci-fi movie, not just any bad sci-fi, but something written for Mystery Science Theater 3001.

Assassin sexbots!I think Mr. stg58 and I have been reading the same stuff...

Feminism isn't about reasonable cases. It's about who...whom.Women collectively need to be knocked off the moral pedestal they're placed on. They're no better than men morally, and honestly, were they to have the same levels of physical capability, they'd probably be a lot worse. Basides, they're happier once you dethrone them.

"I like how they’re calling the legislation the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act. They’re personalizing the impersonal. giving de facto legitimacy to it (or would it be de jure? This is law they’re talking about)."

My off-the-rails description of how it might go from here -

http://nightskyradio.com/2013/01/12/the-world-thats-coming/

Josh - it's not impossible that if sexbots take off, a small number of feminists might try aruging "are actually taking choice away from women, by denying them the opportunity to become stay-at-home wives and mothers. Where have all the fair-to-middling men gone?"

While there isn't a thing to be agreed about in the content, put into context and, yeah, okay. It is fun watching people seeing that they will be forced to eat gruel, when they have had that mandated for everyone else. I, personally, would relinquish my right to sexbots... at the cost of vibrators and dildos. Barring that, I guess I would have to fight for "equal rights". Even if they are rights I would never employ. At least if I were secular.

I am surprised, with the plethora of unused fertilized eggs/embryos, that someone, somewhere, hasn't created an artificial womb, if just to practice abortions, if adoptions are much more lucrative without having to rent space for the cow, with feed, clothing, fashion magazines, and whatever else she might need and want, along with the risk of her deciding against handing the child over.

My favourite bit about this whole thing is that, while these dudes are up in arms about the evil feminists trying to take away their (yet to be invented) sexy robots, the real enemy of their sexual freedom is standing right in front of them. Quoth Vox Day:

"One can make a reasonable case against sexbots...it is also the case against...artificial birth control, and casual sex..."

And unlike the Canadian Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence (*snicker*), the ideology/religion where Vox gets his stupid ideas from is actually real.

Feminism, far from helping women, has actually exposed the fundamental inferiority of women (moral, intellectual, economic) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

In the old days, women were told to be modest and keep their mouths shut, so that everyone assume they were angels of lovely nobility. Now that feminism has taught women to loudly speak their mind, and to enter situations they are ill-suited for, the limitations of women are thus heavily exposed.

Speaking of idealism vs. facts- I wonder how deeply the future development of sexbots will put a dent in the imaginary, inflated statistics about unreported rape that the feminists and manginas keep trotting out in their own self-righteous, self-pleasuring version of artificial reality.

the ministry of robot was disbanded when the feminists where informed that robot men would be the perfect men for them ..they fully obey orders .. they never complain ... and with the most feminist friendly model.. the woman can actually remove the robots penis and carry it around in her purse ..

Oh to be 15 and playing RPG again, as "Blanky Jackhammer" would be an awesome character name.

As for banning vibrators, do we really want a lot of 300 pound aging feminists seeking gratification and having no way to provide for it? We'd be praying for a zombie pandemic in comparison. It's not that they would attack us physically, just that the level of whiny bitching and power grabs would be far worse than they already are. Between affirmative action and this "no one dated me in high school so I got an MBA so I could order men around" attitude, being fired for being a white person with a penis would be even worse than it is now.

"Minister of State (Status of Women)" is totally almost the same as a "Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence," and the arguments of "some random law student" are definitely the same as those of "every feminist." Well done, Vox.

"Minister of State (Status of Women)" is totally almost the same as a "Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence," and the arguments of "some random law student" are definitely the same as those of "every feminist."

Whoosh.... Do you honestly believe that feminists won't be agitating to ban sexbots and actively shame men who make use of them once they become available at reasonable prices?

"Whoosh.... Do you honestly believe that feminists won't be agitating to ban sexbots and actively shame men who make use of them once they become available at reasonable prices?"

Uh, no, because they have real things to deal with that actually matter. You guys are a laugh riot--please continue to make as much a fuss about this as possible. THE FEMINISTS ARE COMING TO TAKE AWAY MY NON-EXISTENT SEXBOTS! (o wait it was a joke and we got fooled) WELL CERTAINLY THE FEMINISTS WILL BE COMING TO TAKE AWAY MY NON-EXISTENT SEXBOTS! Hahahah jesus christ

My birth control is paid partially through my insurance premiums which I pay for, and work for my employer for. In other words: not free. I'm lucky in that I don't have the Catholic Church trying to finagle my insurance company to cease doing so.

Which WAS the point Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads seem to have missed.

And my birth control certainly helps my husband as well, since we don't want any more children, and sterilization is NOT covered by my insurance.

I thought you guys wanted more sex? You seem to have an odd way of going about it, for certain. ;-)

So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?

Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.

If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)

Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.

NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.

Every year scientists and engineers are making advances in miniaturize sensors but there's one aspect of this phenomenon to which a lot of enlighten people have given a good bit of thought. Is having sex with an ultra-realistic robot hooker cheating? -- http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-having-sex-with-robot-cheating.html

Here in Canada, the vast majority of people resistant to sex-bots and birth control for men are men. Now that all the gullible people have figured out that the law is not part of reality, and that no one proposed it, perhaps it is time to snap out of your daze. Please, guys who thought this was a feminist plot, keep going your own way. I'm not sure about your relentless need to believe women want you to desire them. It is commonly referred to as "psychological projection". Delusion. Not rational.Another one: women and men are both shitty and great in their own way. That's how human beings work as a whole. That's why that women score a similar average IQ as men. No better, no worse. Same species. Enough to get the mind blown. I guess that's what I get for considering the opinion of a racist fuck (I must admit I believe Vox Day is a radfem trying to make MRAs and conservatives, who have legitimate concerns, sound like tinfoil hat bullshit). Not sure how you all mistake feminists for Santorum so often.

I always find it entertaining when a simple observation about a woman--or womankind--causes her to spin into a tizzy. The arm flailing is often the only exercise such women receive, so I feel it is a public service.

To have sex is not illegal now but in some places this is not allowed and taken as illegal. One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective. That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex.But now a days no one follow the rule and use the Sex Dolls or Sex toys for sex.To know more about these Love Doll for Sex check this out.

article highly qualified friend .., thanks for sharing information, if interested please visit my blogs there is a lot of articles that may be read friend, Main thing is that you need to seo work If do seo for my blog http://variasiblogger.blogspot.com/ as my blog have 2000+ visitor and I want 15000

Today's women are utterly worthless, they offer nothing more than a vagina in exchange for all the efforts done by the man, a friend of mine is working 7 days/week and 12 hours/day to satisfy his wife's shopping madness, I asked him why he doesn't divorce, he said the only reason he stays with her is for their son, he doesn't want him to have a torn up family. Women are fucking useless and I can't wait for sexbots to arrive, of course feminists will mock men for having sex with an object, but that's what women are doing with dildos since decades, and men won't care anymore about those women because they will be sexually satisfied. Unlike women sexbots won't get old and ugly, they won't get fat, they won't throw tantrum for nothing and will be 10/10 looking in the eyes of the man who bought them. With the progresses in A.I and in self-evolving personalities sexbots will even be able to make great conversation partners while most women can't speak about anything except shopping and your common gossips. Sexbots are a reality despite what feminists are trying to convince themselves and others, it's just a question of years before we see the first models and a question of a decade or two until they become human-like, for your information 15 years ago androids didn't exist, now they can walk and move like humans (Asimov), some others can speak and form sentences by themselves, some can react to touches and pokes, some can look at people of things who are moving, ... fear them women because most men won't hesitate to replace you.